Can you do me a favor and stop communicating with him.
As someone who's already begun to do the same, I back this idea.
To me, the problem is not the fact that he disagrees with me, but his conduct. I respect Double_R, Barney, and Oromagi because they come across as genuine to me. Roosevelt does not. It's easy to tell he doesn't argue in good faith.
He can't go 5 posts without some childish name-calling. When confronted, he tries to justify it with some ridiculous paternalistic argument. For whatever reason, he thinks telling us we should be "forced underground" and saying he will "continue to deride" us is "for our own good," and so we "should be thanking" him. He thinks that, since we are so full of shit, we should be insulted repeatedly so that his pushback makes us think about why we could be wrong.
Ignoring the fact that cult brainwashing tactics like that don't work without significant social pressure, and that they only succeed in stopping PUBLIC expression of beliefs (private expression increases, because people tend to respond to social censorship with disgust, pushing themselves toward the side being censored) when that condition for said social pressure is met, there's the elephant in the room: His assumption that we are wrong.
It's already so proven in his mind that we are evil bigots that he won't debate us genuinely. As he's said in the past: "I don't debate bigots." However, this leads to a natural self-contradiction: He won't debate us to know what we're saying, but somehow, he knows that we hold bigoted beliefs.
I pointed this out to him once with a question that went something like, "How can you tell someone is a bigot when you won't even debate them?" His response was to C/P ONLY the "How can you tell someone is a bigot" part, and conveniently leave out the "when you won't even debate them" part. He essentially took half of my question out and altered the meaning of my rhetorical statement in doing so. He then responded by saying "by what they say and do." .... Yeah, no shit. My point was that since he refuses to debate people, he doesn't actually know what "they say and do."
But of course, he couldn't answer my question honestly. That would require him to trust that my question was genuine. After all, why would he *ever* think a question coming from a bigot is genuine? So instead, he must edit my question to circumvent some kind of trap he thinks I've set. This REPEATED lack in trust for the person across the aisle has ironically, created of him an ideologue so stubborn, childish, and ignorant, that at the end of the day, he's the only one that can't be trusted to argue in good faith.
I doubt ignoring him will make him go away, but I'm still going to ignore him on the grounds of his poor conduct, from the insults to the paranoid belief system he has that causes all of his bad faith arguing. If he wants to waste his time responding to me, here or elsewhere, he can be my guest. Until I see any change in how he argues, I will not waste my time on him.
